For those history buffs who like to argue about who was the better president.

1

Jimmy Carter

President from 1977 to 1981 (Democrat). Known as a peacemaker, he achieved the Camp David Accords and the Salt II Treaty. At the end of his term, he suffered the Iran Hostage Crisis and a significant rise of inflation.

2

Ronald Reagan

President from 1981 to 1989 (Republican). Started a process of economic deregulation. Stood for a "deterrence" in regards to foreign policy. Increased military spending beyond the likes of any previous president. While his presidency achieved improvements on economic growth and a lowering of inflation and unemployment, poverty rose; and the he left behind a multi-million dollar deficit. He was also noted for the Iran-Contra Affair.

By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

Not only was it a sign that they were paying barely any taxes(hey lets dig ourselves into a deeper hole), but it's a sign that the workers, the people that were enabling these ceo's, weren't making shit. Barely enough to survive. But I guess that's a good thing.

It's cool Aphrodisiac, keep propping up Carter like he's Jesus and yanking Ronald Reagan down like
he's Satan cause the world is definitely black and white... and the word condescending was around
before memes but it's cute that's how you know the word.

The Soviet Union was already on its last legs before Reagan. He just moved the clock over a couple minutes. Carter wasn't that great either. This is a really odd choice because while Carter is a great human being he wasn't all that effective of a commander in chief, Reagan is now this super right demigod when even though he championed trickle down economics and was a rather corrupt and shady figure, he donated heavily to Planned Parenthood, championed women's rights, and signed one of the first gay rights bills as a governor. I don't really like either as presidents.

Positives: decreased inflation, decreased unemployment, tax cut (you should like those, those of you who pay taxes), He was against terrorism (said we'd never negotiate with terrorists), in 1983, he led the US in an invasion of Grenada and rescued threatened/captured Americans, He greatly increased relations between the US and the Soviet Union (this led to their downfall in the 90's under George Bush Sr.).

Negatives: Increased the US budget deficit, lot's of terrorist attacks happened (not Regan's fault), and he was attempted to be assassinated right after election (again, not his fault).

Much more positives than Negatives. The big one is he was a crucial factor in ending the cold war.

Sonic, that's called denial. You say Christians are closed minded!? I have nothing more to say to you if you can't accept a website I just found and does exist as a source. It's not Wikipedia either. I'm sure the site says great things about Obama and JFK.

Loool, out of all my lists, this is the one with the most responses. I really dislike the Reagan years. I think Carter was an okay president, but unable to accomplish most of his goals. I think he did the best he could. Reagan, well, I guess Aphrodisiac more or less summed up what I would say about him.

reagens policys are on of the reasons that triggered our economic troubles right now. its not often acknoledged, but the direction he put our country in really destroyered our economic stability. also jimmy carter is so underated, when he was president NO ONE gave him any respect. although he was pretty good, he was considered a joke by the public until years after he was out of office

"Sonic, that's called denial. You say Christians are closed minded!? I have nothing more to say to you if you can't accept a website I just found and does exist as a source. It's not Wikipedia either. I'm sure the site says great things about Obama and JFK."

How fucking blind are you that you can't recognize when someone is trolling you? Holy fucking fuckity fuck fuck, you are stupid as shit.

I generally lean left on most things, but hardcore liberals piss me off just as much as conservatives

I usually challenge liberals to name one bad liberal president and why. Usually they can't, unless they go with Carter, but even then it's qualified that the bad things that happened weren't his fault.

First of all, I was joking bout the cold war. He did greatly improve relations with the Soviets leader (I don't know his name) and I used the source I found for my facts. I said under my initial negatives is he massively increased the nations spending debt. Look back in the thread, that was there. Aphro, he made taxes EQUAL. It's a PERCENTAGE OF WHAT YOU MAKE! Rich people pay much more on taxes, but they have more money which makes up for it. Poor people pay less taxes, but they have less money. It's all an even proportion. Learn some math.

"Aphro, he made taxes EQUAL. It's a PERCENTAGE OF WHAT YOU MAKE! Rich people pay much more on taxes, but they have more money which makes up for it. Poor people pay less taxes, but they have less money. It's all an even proportion. Learn some math."

Here's how taxes work. If you make at least a 1000 dollars (I believe, it's somewhere around there) a year, the government takes a portion of your paycheck. It's the same for every person. If I make 1000 (lets say they take 50%, just to use easy numbers), I get $500 the government gets $500. If I make $10,000,000 (ten million), I get 5 mil, the gov gets 5 mil. It's like tithing at church. The rich earn their money and have a right to a fare share, just as the poor.

ok can't tell if you're trolling or not, but I'll just play along anyways. the U.S. uses a progressive tax, which means you're going to fall into something called a tax bracket depending on how much you earn every year.

people who make between $34,500 and $83,600 annually get taxed by the federal government at a rate of 25%. If you make more than $83,600 but less than $174,400 you get taxed at 28%.

If you make less than $34,500 then you get taxed at 15%. This is just an example of federal income tax, it doesn't include Social Security, Medicare, state income taxes or any other payroll deductions like retirement savings plans, flexible spending accounts, per diem, etc.

there are also all kinds of deductions that can change your taxable income level. Hence how Mitt Romney only paid 15% in taxes last year but earned enough to place him in the 35% tax bracket.

Ok, thanks for the enlightenment. First of all Romney cheated the system, but lots of rich people (ie. my Grandpa is decently wealthy, but pays his taxes in full). Poor people complain about all the money rich people have, and would rather live off food stamps and completely cheat the system. You're right about Romney, but it's a stereotype that all rich people are like that. My dad pays his 25%/28% (not sure which) every year.

I'm not really sure. All I know is the system is much fairer than everyone says. Rich People (ie. Bill Gates) pay taxes and donate millions to charities. Then poor people complain that they aren't rich as well. Occupy Wall Street absolutely disgusts me.

The US may be differnt to usual progressive taxes Inveigh (making this post pointless) or maybe you just missed this out which you knew, but progressive taxes means that you pay (going on your given US rates) 15% on the money you earn under $34,500 and then 25% on the $49,100 you earn between $34,500 and $83,600 etc. not just 25% if you earn between $34,500 and $83,600.

"Poor people complain about all the money rich people have, and would rather live off food stamps and completely cheat the system. You're right about Romney, but it's a stereotype that all rich people are like that."

right. Republicans favor a system that gives the highest earners the ability to be taxed like those in lower brackets -- they're called "tax breaks."

the chicken vs the egg argument comes in the form of "who deserves tax breaks more, the rich or the middle class/poor?" Conservatives argue that the rich deserve them more because they're obviously smarter and work harder, and they'll use the extra money to invest in business and create jobs. Liberals argue that the middle class and poor deserve them more because they haven't had the same opportunities at wealth that the rich have, though they often work just as hard. They also believe putting more money in middle class consumers' pockets will drive spending and create demand, therefore increasing the need for business/job growth.

I tend to favor the middle class, but that's likely because it's the tax bracket I fall into.

'Occupy Wall Street absolutely disgusts me.' like what mainstream media portrays the occupy wall street movement as? or are you disgusted by people who don't want laws in place that support the big corporations and diminish the american dream?

Well, my grandpa lived out of a Mobile Home for 10 years and made an honest living. My great grandfather was a farmer for 60 years and for sure wasn't rich ever in his life, but he retired a millionaire. He never owned more than one car, had a phone of any type, or a tv. The only luxury item he had was a ford truck and a piano for my great grandmother. So not every rich person inherits their fortune. Paris Hilton is a legit excuse, my great grandpa is not.

eh, alot of people i talk to always assume that occupy wall street is a bunch of lazy assholes who feel entitled to the 1%'s money, which doesn't sound right to me. my understanding is that they just want a level playing ground, but the message has just been tainted by hippies just needing an excuse to be hippies

Andcas, I just hate the fact people complain that there are no good jobs when the military is always a viable option. I work at a soccer complex cleaning bathrooms. I live in a middle class/upper class home. I have no shame working anywhere under my standards. I plan on applying for publix soon. So there are always jobs, people are just too lazy to look for them or have to much pride to do them.

'Andcas, I just hate the fact people complain that there are no good jobs when the military is always a viable option.' who the fuck wants to go overseas to have their leg blown off for some bullshit war?

Doesn't matter. I live 10 miles from Fort Benning (the biggest army complex in the US). You better believe the military will always take people and support a family. People are just pussies who want things handed to them easily. Like Maniac! said he was going in the Navy. He earned my respect for doing so.

J, this is my point. It's a job. It's a job that will never be filled. If you don't agree with it, you go without a job. You can't turn down a job then complain about never getting an opportunity. Plenty of people get rich out of the military.

well those people usually go to college first on a military scholarship, then join the military as an officer at middle class salary but with great housing and benefits and continue to build upon that. but anyways, like i said, not many people would feel great about going overseas to have a possiblity to shoot innocent people or have themselves shot for a measly 30g's a year

As am I, but if I can't find a job, I'm not gonna sit around begging the government to make it fair when there is a military that would gladly take another soldier. There is a job, but you guys won't take it. You'd rather sit and cry til an easy one comes along. Pisses me off.

But people would rather sit and cry and do nothing. I'm not gonna lie, when my grandpa dies, I'll be made for life. But you better believe I'll pay my taxes and get a job til I retire myself. I'm no slacker (even if it meant going into the military). I would lose a limb (or my life) to provide for my future family.

umm, they are asking the government to level the playing field in order to perpetuate the american dream. you know, that one thing in our constitution. no enlisted soldier is gonna have any opportunity to have financial freedom from that field of work

Thanks Inviegh for proving my point perfectly. Every jobs a job even if it's not whatcha want. People just don't take specific jobs (that why mexicans take them, and that's not racist, that is a fact).

think he made it way worse 'In 1986, Reagan signed a drug enforcement bill that budgeted $1.7 billion to fund the War on Drugs and specified a mandatory minimum penalty for drug offenses.' i don't even know much about reagan or carter but that alone makes me hate him just cause it directly affects me

the best president was andrew jackson, he dueled with people in his back yard like 20 times, and beat people up-fact. as for reagan or jimmy i heard they are both the worst president by different people, but ronald was just a standard conservative witch is boring, and liberal views piss me off sometimes especially about gunsand shit. but yeah the drug shit is conservative and that pisses me off. i would say im libertarian because i read some ayn rand books but she really goes too far sometimes.